Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

WiglyWorm writes "MP3tunes CEO Michael Robertson sent out an email to all users of the online music backup and place-shifting service MP3tunes.com, asking them to help publicize EMI's ridiculous and ignorant lawsuit against the company. EMI believes that consumers aren't allowed to store their music files online, and that MP3tunes is violating copyright law by providing a backup service."

EMI believes that consumers aren't allowed to store their music files online, and that MP3tunes is violating copyright law by providing a backup service.

Sadly, in some markets, he's probably correct. I can't speak for America, though I'd assume the Fair Use doctrine would apply, but in the UK I'm fairly certain that it's still, albeit perhaps only technically, illegal [wikipedia.org] (sorry, I couldn't find a more authoritative source) to copy CDs for any purpose, whether for transfer to an iPod for practical purposes or simply as an archival backup.

I'd hazard a guess, insofar as I'd want to try and infer reason in the minds of music executives, that online storage is probably perceived as being equal to distribution via p2p. I hope that, some day, a music company might at least try to employ someone familiar with IT. Presumably it'd save them a little time and money.

IMHO this makes a lot of sense. You can do whatever the hell you want with the CD you purchased - the only thing you cannot do is make a copy of it, with limited exceptions for fair dealing. That's traditionally how copyright law worked and it's how it still applies to books. It just needs to be explicit that the temporary copy made in the memory of the CD player or the computer to play the music does not infringe copyright.

Of course, the publishers want to have it both ways - at some times to insist on a strict interpretation of traditional copyright, and at others to insist that what you bought is a 'licence' rather than a CD or computer program, and they can restrict you even further than copyright allows.

>>>"the publishers want to have it both ways - at some times to insist on a strict interpretation of traditional copyright, and at others to insist that what you bought is a 'licence' rather than a CD or computer program, and they can restrict you even further than copyright allows."I've found that assassination is an effective way to deal with dictators... including CEOs. The record execs have not reached that stage where they deserve to die, but if they continue "eating out" the substance of our

One of the main things you CAN do with your purchases of CDs and DVDs is to make back-up copies. You can even make the copy and store the original somewhere safe, using the copy in your DVD/CD player. That USE is only FAIR.

This is no different from any other online backup [google.com] service that will copy the file contents of your hard drive (or flash drive, DVD-rom, pretty much whatever you point it at) for retrieval later. And they're all 100% legal.

In the US "fair use" actually covers quite a bit of ground, including making copies for your car and shifting from CD to MP3 player.The way our legal system is supposed to work, is that Side A lays out an obviously BS interpretation of the rules, Side B lays out a similar but diametrically opposed BS interpretation, and the courts try to find a middle ground. So far in the US, it has been that Side A lays out an obviously BS interpretation, then buys a ton of lobbyist time to get that codified into law. S

I'd hazard a guess, insofar as I'd want to try and infer reason in the minds of music executives, that online storage is probably perceived as being equal to distribution via p2p

Ah, but there's a vital difference because with P2P you transfer the copy to a different legal entity. If I rent a bank deposit box, the bank may be handling the copy but it remains my copy. Is MP3tunes allowed to offer a "mp3 vault" for my music? Apart from being a much more specialized service, it is any different than any other online backup solution? I haven't bothered to read the specifics but I hardly think it'll be the same case as P2P.

Don't see why not since I can rent storage for my DVD collection and have the company ship them to whatever location. I think EMI are objecting mainly to the fact that the user has the 'key' to the safe and can therefore allow others to use it to bypass EMI's toll.

There is no fair use about this.
EMI is saying when you upload a file to an on-line site you are lossing posestion of the file and it is entering the possestion of the site you uploaded the file too. It the uploader is still claiming rights to the file then a copy was made. Making an additional copy of the music is a right that only EMI can give. Never mind that all the music upload was not from EMI.
mp3tunes case was that they were not sharing the files, only available to the uploader, and they did nothing with the files except provide backup protection and allow the uploader purchaser access to them.
The lower court has already decided on this in favor of mp3tunes. This was back in March, the item released today was more in the area of a press release.

Then as you say this will boil down to laws not keeping up with the way technology is going. Chances are in most states in the US and most other countries EMI is probably right in the law.

not only that, but the ipod and every other mp3 player plays COPIES of music, not the original CD.. the very device that drives legal sales of digital music can be illegally used to play copies of CD's. oh, my..next, they'll argue that SPEAKERS connected to an audio device constitutes DISTRIBUTION and/or public performance (even in your home) if someone other than the actual owner of the CD is listening. want to use a headphone splitter so you and your partner can listen to the same music next time you fly

in the UK I'm fairly certain that it's still, albeit perhaps only technically, illegal (sorry, I couldn't find a more authoritative source) to copy CDs for any purpose, whether for transfer to an iPod for practical purposes or simply as an archival backup.

No, that's wrong, there's a whole range of types of copying that are legal in the UK, described in Section 3 [opsi.gov.uk] of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Whether they apply specifically to CD ripping for the purpose of enjoying music you own is d

While I'll simplify it down some, here are the two most important things you need to know about copyright.Making copies of works that you didn't create is illegal unless you are doing it for personal use (fair use, there's a whole set up things that fall in this catagory).

Making copies of works you didn't create for the purposes earning money is illegal unless you have the copyright holders permission.

The problem is run into in the nature of the service being offered. This isn't merely storage, they are di

The problem is run into in the nature of the service being offered. This isn't merely storage, they are distributing the works.

They are NOT distributing it !!!

Distribute - verb (used with object), -uted, -uting.

1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.
3. to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, esp. in a specified region or area.
4. to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients.
5. to divide into distinct phases: The process was distributed into three stages.
6. to divide into classes: These plants are distributed into 22 classes.

They are not dividing the file into pieces, nor sharing it amongst any other parties. They are merely serving it back to the original owner when requested. I would imagine that definitions 3 and 4 could apply, but ONLY in the context of the original owner... no plurals involved.

Your argument is like accusing a bank of "distributing" your money when you pay a cheque into the bank and then use an ATM at a different branch to withdraw the SAME money that BELONGS TO YOU !!!

The way it seems to run, this isn't a common carrier thing that is being run in good faith, like say any random hosting company, this is a company that is advertising that it will distribute copies of music that you bought from someone else to you on any device you want.

There's that word again:-( You really don't get it do you ?

That changes the rules, they can't do that without a license, even if you have 5000 copies at home.

When I purchase a CD, fair use says I may make backup copies for my own personal use. It does not dictate that those backup copies MUST remain within my own home, otherwise anyone with a cassette tape in their car that they copied from a CD they own would also be "breaking the law" everytime the car left the driveway.

If I choose to put my copies in a bank, they remain my property, and the bank does not "distribute" them to ANY third party. Likewise if I choose to store my data in an online file storage repository, and said repository ONLY returns that data to me when I supply MY username and password, it is exactly the same thing.

Don't let your shortsightedness blind you to the reality... a URL with "mp3" in it does not automatically equate to "file sharing".

I think distribution would come in if you were to give your password and account to someone else. I think all the company would need to do at that point is to put it into the EULA (?) that you can't give your password out or you can be sued for breaking copyright laws. I think the passing of passwords and accounts is more what the copyright issue is about.

So is uploading to a secure FTP site and downloading from wherever else I am classed as distribution on behalf of whoever hosts my FTP site?Of course your argument is based on the idea that it's for moving around copyrighted content from the big labels but why is that the case any more so than my ISPs FTP space they provide me? I could just as well be moving files that I made myself and own the copyright to. Taking in the wider context like this it must be realised that this kind of case has wide ranging im

> Making copies of works that you didn't create is illegal unless you are doing it for personal use (fair use, there's a whole set up things that fall in this catagory).

No. Making copies of works that you are not the copyright holder of is illegal, unless you have a license to do so (for example, creative commons license, or the license a record company holds for a musicians work) or unless you don't need a license for other reasons. (There are quite a few reasons. Fair use is one example. See the laws for more)

The points you have listed are not "things you need to know about copyright." but more like "things you need to know about how the old fashioned greedy corporations choose to use copyright in many cases"

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 explicitly gives people the right to make personal, non-commercial copies of music they own (in the form of a tape, album, CD, etc.). The Senate commentary that accompanied the passage of that bill specifically addressed making copies for family members or use in a car.

How is storing something remotely the same as distributing it?The only thing I see this service do, is offer you a location somewhere else to store your music, so that you can listen to it on a different computer (such as for instance a work-pc).They don't distribute it to anyone else.Each user has his/her own password protected account on which they can store their music or any other file-type for that matter, it's not limited to music, I don't think.

So, saying that is illegal, will make for instance Amazon's S3 storage solutions also illegal, or other off-site storage solutions.

The problem is run into in the nature of the service being offered. This isn't merely storage, they are distributing the works. The way it seems to run, this isn't a common carrier thing that is being run in good faith, like say any random hosting company, this is a company that is advertising that it will distribute copies of music that you bought from someone else to you on any device you want. That changes the rules, they can't do that without a license, even if you have 5000 copies at home.

I submit that the most siginficant aspect of this story is that it demonstrates now the artificial market interference of the "anti-piracy" enforcers is already being used to arbitrarily restrict user freedoms in areas that are only incidentally related to the purpose of copyrights.

This kind of rippling ramification will become ever more common as the legacy duplication and distribution industries get ever more desperate in protecting their obsolote business model from technological progress.

...from EMI, or any of their ilk? They have to take this stance, no matter how inane in and of itself in this particular situation, because anything which remotely gives the consumer the overt or even tacit appearance of 'control' over music is anathema to their desire to re-vision their 'IP' as a 'pay-per-play' resource.

I don't even understand how they can say this. If there isn't a copyright infringement going on here (I'd understand that), then what's the problem? By saying this, they're illegalizing the entire online music business? Some holding EMI's own music, like iTunes.

Or is this about some obscure difference between online storage and online storage?

But since this isn't about copyright infringement (right?? I'm still a bit confused), EMI has earned money on the customer already, so I'd say they have made their money when they sold their music to the customer that put it in an online storage. *shrug*

iTunes is licensed by the copyright holder to distribute copies of songs, under specified circumstances. Without a license to distribute EMI songs, it's entirely possible that EMI has a case under current copyright law.

EMI wants to gain access to copies of files that users have on their MP3tunes accounts. Now, I'm assuming that you can't just go in and browse the list of files that a user has, otherwise they'd have shot themselves in the foot by arguing on privacy grounds.

So I'm assuming that EMI came along and said, "We want all the MP3s stored in user X's account." As it's unlikely that any user has an account filled 100% with EMI music, EMI would be given access to a significant amount of music from other labels, without the consent of the copyright holders. Which seems very hypocritical, even if it's legitimised by a court order.

If I were coding this site, complete with online backup of purchased tunes, there's no way I'd actually keep 89,227 copies of Britney Spears' latest toxic waste on my servers at 4MB (give or take) per copy. No, I'd keep a DB table of links to one master copy of the file, possibly replicated across multiple servers depending on traffic levels. This would likely be the same file that would be downloaded in the event of a purchase. Call me an old fashioned developer but despite 20 cent per gig storage, I still refuse to waste it on unneeded duplication of files.

So, almost certainly their backup service is a massive shared folder that all their backup service users have access to. Large shared folder? Multi-user access? Starting to sound a bit more like the loathed P2P the record labels love to hate, isn't it?

If I were coding this site... Call me an old fashioned developer but despite 20 cent per gig storage, I still refuse to waste it on unneeded duplication of files.

Then not only are you an old-fashioned developer, you're a lousy old-fashioned developer with no knowledge of the wider world your software is operating within. Security and legal concerns (especially legal concerns) trump the $0.00078 savings, by your estimated storage price, per copy of "Toxic". This is especially true when the architecture you're discussing would cost more time and money to implement than the safer version, what with the necessity of acoustic fingerprinting or some other technology to make sure that User1's "Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3" is the same as User2's "Toxic - Britney Spears (ub3r h0t ch1ck).mp3" is the same as User3's "251 - BS - TOXIC.mp3".

So, almost certainly their backup service is a massive shared folder that all their backup service users have access to.

Please, by all that's holy, tell me you're just over-simplifying for the masses. Actually, don't tell me that, because there's only two options here:

1. You're over simplifying a complicated technology, just like the idiots at EMI/SonyBMG/ do to confuse the non-technical people judging a case, or

2. You're not even a developer (or are someone who's written a half-dozen PHP scripts for their buddy's website and thinks they're a developer) and are just blowing smoke on this topic.

Either way, this absurd and technically inappropriate answer isn't doing anything except to muddy the waters. Please leave that to the professionals at EMI.

Then not only are you an old-fashioned developer, you're a lousy old-fashioned developer with no knowledge of the wider world your software is operating within. Security and legal concerns (especially legal concerns) trump the $0.00078 savings, by your estimated storage price, per copy of "Toxic". This is especially true when the architecture you're discussing would cost more time and money to implement than the safer version, what with the necessity of acoustic fingerprinting or some other technology to ma

So you would rather waste developer's time, which costs actual money, to create a system where people would get back the same music, with the same ID3 tags and the same name, and where those files were somehow created from a digital library of music and a db of what the file looked like when the user uploaded it?Yeah, great idea. Call me old-fashioned, but complex solutions to non-problems are bad. Storage is so cheap now that it's practicaly free. Think of it as free, and stop wasting resources that are ac

If I buy a CD and I put it in my PC, I will be able to access it through ssh and thus it is online. So even though nobody else can access it, it is a CD I bought I am not able to put the CD in my machine, because it is connected to the Interwebs.

Much in the same way as the music bigwigs think P2P = infringement (it is a file distribution protocol, and nothing else), all mp3 files are not necessarily infringing. I could make mp3 files of my own music, sound effects I've created (or royalty-free sfx), perhaps a personal audio diary, etc., etc. Unless the file names are blatantly obvious, how would anyone know their content without downloading and listening to every one? So now they want mp3 files to be banned from remote online storage because they might be (or even probably are) copyrighted material? Where does that stop? That's like saying that since most child porn images are in JPG format, therefore storing JPGs online is illegal.

>>>"People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago."

Well then, supplement your CDs with sales of MP3 singles. The singles market is going through the roof, and if you provided your customers with a place to buy and download MP3 singles, you'd probably be a popular stop for the teen and 20-something market.

ADJUST to the needs of your customers.If they are demanding singles, don't hand them CDs.Give them singles; give them what they want.

And how is one to legally provide those MP3s? Hell, I'd love to run a store where I could dump the entire CD collection to a server in flac format, and let people then burn their own custom CD from that and pay me, without me having to pay upstream because I only bought one copy. I don't think it would work that way though.

If you want to whine about someone killing your business, whine at the labelsfor trying to kill the single format. They did this on purpose. They go greedyand decided they wanted to soak everyone for the whole album price of ablumsnot worth buying.In the end, singles resurrected themselves because that's what the market wanted.It just so happens that the form that singles resurrected themselves in aren'tsuitable for your business model.

And how is one to legally provide those MP3s? Hell, I'd love to run a store where I could dump the entire CD collection to a server in flac format, and let people then burn their own custom CD from that and pay me, without me having to pay upstream because I only bought one copy. I don't think it would work that way though.
That would actually be a nice model if you could get the *AA onboard.

Try selling local music. I'm sure there are plenty of local, unsigned artists that would love to have their music converted into digital files and sold in your stores. You could set it up like a coffeeshop. People come to the counter and say, "I'd like a hazelnut coffee and the first three tracks of [LOCAL BAND]'s new album, please. I'd like those without the CD today. Just give me the passcode so I can download them onto my laptop through your local WiFi network. Thanks! Oh, here's your tip."

Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.

Personally, what I think that IP product* companies and people need to concentrate less on surpressing piracy and more on attracting customers and profit.Just like a storefront business doesn't perform the measures necessary to stop 100% of shoplifting, music companies shouldn't either. Why? Because the draconian measures necessary piss of the paying customers, ultimately costing sales. So a store will go: In order to drop our shrink rate from 1% to.5% we'd have to institute 100% bag checking. This wil

Not quite sure what you mean by "hawked" (please feel free to elaborate), but the product a blacksmith was involved in was a method of transit (making the components of it) designed to make moving between two distant points more easily. Cars do the same thing, without the blacksmith - thus while its not their own product that they don't get a return on directly, they've been overtaken in the market and they'll stand to lose alot or all of their return on their own product anyway, since nobody's buying it.It

Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.

Yes they did: the product was a means of transport. Few of the customers actually wanted horse, whips etc. they wanted transport. Cars are a different implementation of that product. By your definition, Ford are not competing with GM because Ford's product is different from GM's.

What is actually being supplied is the ability to listen to nice noises. The transport layer is irrelevant.

Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.

It's not a perfect analogy, sure. But you ignore the point -- the world changes, and demand changes. The fact that this change is different in some ways from the changes that obsoleted blacksmiths and buggy whip makers doesn't mean it is different in all ways.

If people no longer feel the need to shop at brick-and-mortar record stores because they want MP3s rather than CDs (which often force them to buy songs they don't want along with the ones they do), then brick-and-mortar record stores will find staying in business difficult. That doesn't mean you can't make money selling music, just that you have to change your business model -- sell MP3 singles instead of CD albums.

How's iTunes doing? Are they struggling to stay afloat as well, or is business doing fine?

actually, lately i am seeing more and more new music created. authors place it for free download, because, well, they want people to hear it. as a result, people tend to go more to gigs and so on.i'm not interested in those sweet boybands that some old producer with weird sexual preferences creates one after another, as those can't adapt to such an environment. so, if we get less "music" like that and more of 'underground' one... hey, go for it:)

i'm not interested in those sweet boybands that some old producer with weird sexual preferences creates one after another, as those can't adapt to such an environment. so, if we get less "music" like that and more of 'underground' one... hey, go for it:)

Good for you, but some people are interested in music (and other art forms) that are created under copyright. Caving to piracy won't increase any of this "underground" music, but it will cut down everything else, and a lot of people would miss the "everything else".

Anyway, it's completely disingenuous and completely false that you know all of the commercial music out there, and that out of all of it, non-commercial music would be better than all of it. Basically, it suggests an irrational prejudice against commercial music. I actually don't mean any offence about this; god knows I have a number of irrational prejudices of my own, but bear it in mind: not all commercial music fits that mould.

well, 'commercial music' should be defined precisely then;)if music is created with intent to sell it but fails - is that commercial music ?if music is created without commercial intent but becomes widely successful commercially - is that commercial music ?

i don't think current 'commercial music' would completely die off - just as with other niches, new business models can and will work. the market will only reshape, and then become more robust (there have been several showcases lately - nin, radiohead etc).

also, one side is the motivation to create, which can adapt, and then there's the insane length of copyright. i think that current piracy is only fueled by the copyright length, as re-selling of the same product for decades only damages its perception (in this case - perceived value of the music) in the eyes of the general public.

I see your point, but I think it's not realistic of what's currently going on.Recording is changing. If you do electronic music, you don't need anything else than a computer and creativity. You don't need to pay a producer if you don't want to, you don't need to pay for time at a recording studio, you don't need to pay those engineers.

If you don't do electronic, home recording equipment is getting cheaper and cheaper, and gaining in quality and ease of use. The people that organise tours etc still get paid,

While I don't care if record stores go out of business, since it's clear that online downloads has won as the successor to the CD format, I do care about copyright. Online distribution without compensating the copyright holder will cause the arts to suffer. Yes, artists are getting ripped off by music companies, that will change as online downloads dramatically decreases the cost of distributing the work to the people. There are already companies that will list you on iTunes while leaving the copyright in your possession. The artists still get compensated in a way they find meaningful. Just because you don't like how they are treated doesn't mean you have the right to give their works away for free, thus removing all revenue they would generate for the work. An artist who finds a way to give their works away for free while still earning money on those works is making the choice, which is well within their rights, but it is NOT within your rights to make that choice for them.

Copyright serves a purpose, yes it's misused, yes the way works is sent out to the masses can be improved, but artists need to know they can earn a living worthy enough to create works. Yes, they can earn a great deal of money playing live shows, but do you honestly realize how hard it is on a person to tour? People have left bands that were earning them millions of dollars because they missed their wives! These are human beings, not some commodity to be used at your discretion.

Yes, they can earn a great deal of money playing live shows, but do you honestly realize how hard it is on a person to tour? People have left bands that were earning them millions of dollars because they missed their wives! These are human beings, not some commodity to be used at your discretion.

Then Fishermen going out to sea for many days or weeks, risking their lives ARE commodity? Are we allowed to use them at our discretion? Maybe they miss their family too, but with no million dollar bank accounts, they have to keep on working.

And what about people working very hard at off-shore oil platforms? Can we use them? I'm pretty sure that their wage is somewhat lower than the average artist on tour, but they have to do it anyway.

Not to mention the military, far from home months on end. And don't get me started on the average wage here.

Then Fishermen going out to sea for many days or weeks, risking their lives ARE commodity? Are we allowed to use them at our discretion? Maybe they miss their family too, but with no million dollar bank accounts, they have to keep on working.

And what about people working very hard at off-shore oil platforms? Can we use them? I'm pretty sure that their wage is somewhat lower than the average artist on tour, but they have to do it anyway.

Not to mention the military, far from home months on end. And don't get me started on the average wage here.

Luxury hotel rooms? I take your point, but you are apparently unaware of what the Average touring groups income is. There are far, far, more groups out there touring than the Mettalicas, Boy Bands, and Hillary Duff, after all.... Just grab your local events magazine and look to see who is playing local bars and small venues... You will see a large percentage of touring musicians, and I assure you that it is very rare for any of them to afford luxury hotel rooms, travel in luxury tour buses or limos and have a million-dollar contract in their back pocket.

So, although the Elite touring groups do have all that cool pampered luxury, the bar for the average touring musician or group is quite a bit below that level.

That doesn't negate your main point, which seems to be "Other fields make sacrifices for the job too, and there is no reason to single out Artists" which I agree with, I might add.

Right. Working pretty well sucks. Making money is usually very difficult, taking a lot of work and personal sacrifice. Most of us have to work all day sitting in a small cubical under fluorescent lights, being abused by morons. If you're lucky enough to make a living by sitting in a nice club in front of cheering fans, consider yourself lucky.

The cost of releasing a track has dropped to almost nothing. With an $800 Boss solid-state recording deck and a laptop, we have tools that are an order of magnitude better than whole recording studios from a decade ago.

If the majors had reduced their prices to match the drop in costs, they might have kept a place in the market. As it is, their greed and stupidity means they deserve to die.

Oddly enough though, our band still produces CDs for local fans to buy at gigs, and they sell well despite the tracks being freely available on the web. A little goodwill goes a long way, I suspect.

Does that $800 studio in a box include the U87, good preamps and eqs, skilled recording, mixing and mastering engineers?

Yes, making music yourself is easier than ever, and the results better quality than ever. But claiming your cheap digital multitrack produces better results than studio productions of a decade ago is frankly foolish.

Obviously, it doesn't. But the point is that you CAN produce a CD for 800$. Which could not be done 10 years ago. The skill still has to be there, just as 10 years ago. But the basic tools can be purchased for much less, giving you way more tools than what was available a while ago.
A good sound engineer will give you more quality with a cheap Rode mic, a cheap m-audio interface Garageband and a few plugins, than with a 4 track tape recorder, a Neumann U87 and an actual plate reverb. And it will cost you 1

a cheap Rode mic, a cheap m-audio interface Garageband and a few plugins

I own a Shure KSM 44, and we've used other gear on occasion, including a hired U87. The rest of the gear varies a bit - there's probably a few thousand dollars worth in the whole collection, but certainly less than ten grand.

You can recoup that sort of investment pretty quickly if you're keeping your fans' money instead of giving it to a label.

I hate to break it to you, but U87s aren't that good. Also, it's a bloody microphone. It doesn't matter what you sing into if you can't sing or if you can sing but you choose to sing the mind-numbing drivel that the majors seem to want to put out.

Personally I can't *wait* until the majors go out of business. I'm going to pirate my socks off until all the record companies disappear up their own arseholes. Maybe then there will be a reduction in the saccharine pap that invades our eardrums.

Automobiles and the demise of horse aided travel didn't really put blacksmiths out of business. What it really did was differentiate between farriers and blacksmiths. A blacksmith is someone who works metal with a forge. A farrier is someone skilled in hoof care, which includes shoeing and potentially fabricating shoes.

Now at one point, it was well accepted that your rural blacksmith would be well versed as a farrier (made sense from a bussiness standpoint). However as horses became more rare, fewer

But would the world really be a better place if we had stuck to using horse drawn carts?

Hmm, I guess that depends. What's the fuel economy on a horse-drawn cart these days? I guess we'd have to ask the Amish. Plus the emissions are much more manageable and it can be used as fertilizer to grow more fuel for the horse. I think the world probably would be better if we had stuck with horse-drawn carts, from a purely environmental perspective.

I haven't seen it before, and after I realised it wasn't serious, it is kinda funny. I was horrified when I thought it was someone who actually believed what he was saying:s I'm a christian and I find most 'christian rock' extremely bland.. kind of like Nickelback, but with less panties.

Do noooot feed the troooooollls! Sheesh, this troll is older than me. There: I did my best =P---As a table dance club owner, My business faces ruin. table dance sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as table dances as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My club has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.

I bought the club about 12 years ago. It was one of those clubs that play obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My table dance club specialized in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't play sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.

The business strategy worked. People flocked table dance club, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase table dances without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.

Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer table dances. Why is no one buying table dances? Are people not interested in lust? Do people prefer to watch TV, see porn films, read erotic books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three geek world wide is watches porn. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of porn in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the table dance industry, from dancers, to Djs to table dance club owners my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike porn, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.

A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.

"Dude, I'm going to put this table dance in the Internet right away."

"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."

I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the table dance industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase (they ticket for the table dance), I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.

"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.

"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my club - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.

So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the table dance club industry, then the table dance club industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable table dance club will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the table dance tickets to begin with, then they won't be able to watch them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.

I have just written a letter to the TIAA outlining my proposal. Suing pirates one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention pirates use the fact that they're being sued to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of pirates would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to

>>>"People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to a hotline, similar to TIPS. The police have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?"TIPs didn't stop videogame piracy in the 80s or 90s, and it won't stop music piracy now.

As for the police, I assume you were joking when you said they fought the War on Drugs with skill. They LOST the war on drugs, same way they lost they War on Alcohol in the 20s and 30s. The politicians/police are just too dumb t

They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?

Um... are you sure you're on the right website? This is slashdot. I can't even count the number of times it's been said here that a war on a concept (eg. war on drugs, war on communism, war on terror, war on blah blah blah) has been ineffective. Drugs are still very much a problem, communist countries still exist, and Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Check your facts before posting such drivel.

As a record store owner, My business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.

The product has become dangerous. We used to buy 12 inch LP's, cut tapes for the car, play them with slides, etc. They have gotten the word out that most of these activities are now a legal liability that can cost you thousands of dollars. My peak piracy days 30 years ago was my peak purchasing days. The average then for the population was 2 LP purchases / year per capita in the USA.

My kids have grown up with iPods and the like. The music prices haven't changed. They have 30 Gig players and you still charge dribble prices for content. If the petrolium industry sold gas like you sell music, we would be arriving with empty 16 gallon tanks and finding the stuff in pretty packages that will fit nicely in your shirt pocket. Alternative fuel is the order of the day just like alternative distribution. The players have changed. The product value has changed. Back catalog is sold at full retail. There is no exchange or upgrade path for worn media. Care to exchange some 8 track tapes and Compact Cassette tapes? I have the full license to play them, but you don't back the license to ensure I am able to enjoy it.

Why is no one buying CDs?

That one is simple. I'm supprised you had to ask, but in no paticular order...1 The loudness war2 High prices for little content3 Competition for the entertainment dollar (pay TV, satelite radio, cell phones, computer games, MP3 players, and others that had no or little presense 30 years ago.)4 Retaliation for the industry's nukes on student's finances.5 DRM on CD's makes them incompatible and dangerous to use. I don't keep a list of safe to play CD's. The lack of the Philip's Compact Disc logo on the good bad and ugly makes shopping by the cover very difficult.6 Free music online (not piracy)7 Piracy (fueled by all of the above)8 Restrictions on use... Can't leagaly do the Carson Williams light show legaly unless you buy one of the approved for use licenses from Lights-o-Rama or play it in public at a reception, etc. No weekend DJ'ing for me.8 ?? did I miss anything?

In summary, the product is compressed, possibly won't be transferrable to the kids iPod, can't be used with a Power Point Slideshow for a wedding, can't be used for the reception dance, super expensive to keep a current library for the above, and is a very expensive legal liability if your kids post it. The product is expensive, may be defective with no recourse, and a legal liability.

"When the kids went to bed, my wife asked me, "Will we be able to keep the house, David?""

I used to work in the VCR and TV repair business. When 20 inch color TV's were $400 and VHS VCR's were $600, people would pay the rate for a couple hours it took to repair them. Now purchase prices are near what a repair used to cost. I kept my house, but found a new line of work. Your field isn't the only one hit by distribution channels providing a cheaper product.

As long as your supplier is stuck on dribbling out product and sitting on back catalog and fighting hard to keep the ASP high, the demand in going to be small. Get used to it.

If your supplier was smart, they could sell compilation CD's of high quality MP3's of back catalog. They would be iPod, Zen, Zune ready, high quality and affordable. I would pay good money for high quality collections of Chicago, Pink Floyd, Styx, Led Zepplin, etc. Toss the restrictions on use and sell collections of 50's, 60's, & 70's dance music with permission to DJ the stuff may sell a bunch more. Many DJ consoles now play MP3's instead of CD's. Make loading the MP3's on the device hard drive legal instead of a legal liability.

1 The loudness war2 High prices for little content3 Competition for the entertainment dollar (pay TV, satelite radio, cell phones, computer games, MP3 players, and others that had no or little presense 30 years ago.)4 Retaliation for the industry's nukes on student's finances.5 DRM on CD's makes them incompatible and dangerous to use. I don't keep a list of safe to play CD's. The lack of the Philip's Compact Disc logo on the good bad and ugly makes shopping by the cover very difficult.6 Free music online (not piracy)7 Piracy (fueled by all of the above)8 Restrictions on use... Can't leagaly do the Carson Williams light show legaly unless you buy one of the approved for use licenses from Lights-o-Rama or play it in public at a reception, etc. No weekend DJ'ing for me.8 ?? did I miss anything?

Nice list, but I think you misunderstand what people want. They don't hear or don't care about DRM, about the RIAA, or about the loudness war. The internet introduced an immediacy to entertainment that traditional physical music distribution simply can't tap into. That's the main cause of piracy today. They want their entertainment now, and the lack of effective enforcement allowed it. Of course, it doesn't make much difference to these people whether it's good illegal content or good legal content. It ends up the same for them. Of course price plays a large part as well.

As a record store owner, My business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago......... I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.

so.. you're saying that even the bible thumpin' crowd is pirating music and driving you out of business?... for shame!

have you tried putting a sign in the window saying "music piracy is a sin. buy from us and save your ticket to heaven." ?

As a lamp oil store owner, My business faces ruin. Lamp oil sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as much lamp oil as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.

When times were good, you were entitled to the profits. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you own the losses as well.Do you deserve any more consideration than a gas station owner? Competition is fierce; people switch stations to save a penny per gallon. Rising wholesale prices cut into margins, "pay at the pump" delivers most of the profit directly to credit card middlemen. As prices go up, people WILL start to buy less. When alternative energy goes online, maybe they fuel up at home!

Oh come on, this troll was posted (and bittten) last year. As trolls go it isn't bad but gees, your troll was copyrighted last year when its original author trolled with it. You are in violation of copyright law, you filthy pirate!

Our lawyers will be coming for you and your grandmother and your handicapped son shortly. I believe we MIGHT be able to settle for $3,000 but if you force us to take you to court it's going to be a HUNDRED GRAND.